536 



secured a ccaigressional prohibition of liquor advertisatEnts through 

 interstate mail to "dry" states. Also at the behest of the League, Ccoigress 

 amended wartime food- control statutes by prohibiting the manufacture of 

 "spirituous liquors, " and authorized the President to ban or othervdse 

 regulate the sale and production of all beer and vdjie. 



Originally, prohibitionists said they were only after the traffic in 

 liquor, not individuals or consumers. It soon became ^^parent, hcwever, that 

 the point of the Taiperance Mdvement was to regulate the drinking habits of 

 each and every Anerican. Does all this sound familiar? It should. And, it 

 should also alarm the American public. 



If the irenters of this subcarmittee think that Dr. Kessler and anti- 

 tcbacco grxx?)s really will be satisfied with anything short of an outright ban 

 on cigarettes, they are not, in ity view, being realistic. Dr. Kessler 's 

 February 25 letter speculates that only those brands containing nicotine at 

 nonaddictive levels could renain on the marketplace. I siuply find it hard to 

 believe that the FDA, pressured by the anti- tobacco groups, will ever arrive 

 at an 'acc^table" clinical definition of nonaddictive nicotine. 



Moreover, v*iy is this agency spending so much of its time and resources 

 reviewing an old subject? Are not these resources better directed toward 

 reducing the chronic backlog of pending medical device applications and new 

 drug approvals before the FDA. Based on recent figures, the agency will visit 

 each of the drug and device establishments it is required to inspect -- 90,000 

 in all -- cnce every six years instead of cnce every two years, as the statute 

 requires. The infrequent rate at v*iich the agency inspects iitported products 

 and foreign plants is alarming as well. Fran 1985 to SeptaAer 1989, for 

 ejonple, only 31 of the 3,400 registered foreign canneries were inspected. 



Vfy constituents would rather the FDA use their tax dollars to protect 

 the safety of their food, drugs, and medical devices. They do not want the 

 agency to launch a paternalistic crusade that will ultimately cost them their 

 livelihoods. 



